What is the Real Purpose of the CPO?
BY: SANAKA RSI DAS
Jul 30, ITALY (SUN) — I compiled the following document in 2008 when Gauri’s case was still being adjudicated; at this point I was exasperated, I wanted to take the case public. I later changed my mind and decided against it.
The recent letters by Visnugada prabhu and Radhapriya mataji have prompted me to publish it. It is my hope that becoming acquainted with the extent of the difficulties we experienced in dealing with the CPO will be beneficial to the devotee community and ultimately to the CPO itself.
I hope this document will offer a different perspective on how the CPO works and what it stands for, I hope Visnugadha prabhu will appreciate why I disagree with his opinion that presents the CPO as biased towards the victims. I hope Radhapriya mataji will reconsider her opinion on Tamohara, the CPO and the Gurukulis' position.
Ray Lanthier has responded very articulately to Radhapria’s article already. I will only add a couple of points. In regards to the Turley lawsuit payouts; it is naïve and inaccurate to present it as a goodwill gesture from ISKCON towards those that suffered in its Gurukulas.
ISKCON authorities as a whole did not really start to take child abuse seriously until it cost them money, and sadly many still don't. ISKCON paid because it was forced to, because it did not have a choice in the matter and for no other reason. It is at best deceptive for ISKCON and/or its representatives to somehow try and take credit for this payout.
My experience with the CPO brings me to believe that the primary purpose of the people that control the CPO today is first and foremost the protection of what they perceive as being the best interest and welfare of the institution.
The interests of the children and of the devotees are secondary and are often taken into consideration only if and when they do not conflict with the interests of the society.
I am not in a position to comment on the case of Varkesvara Pandit, however, if he is innocent, as Visnugadha suggests, the reason behind the unwillingness of the CPO and the GBC to review his case may be found in the fact that it would be a PR disaster if it came out that the CPO convicted an innocent man. They certainly do not want nor need that at this point.
What I see as the real problem is that ultimately to the CPO does not seem to value truth as much as practicality, convenience and good PR.
I believe that Gauri prabhu was made to resign from his presidency because, after having explored the different possibilities, it was concluded that it would have been more detrimental for ISKCON's PR to keep him than to drop him; and he was dropped.
If it is true that Tamohara prabhu “is trying his best to serve the children of ISKCON”, as Radhapriya suggests in her letter, then I urge Tamohara prabhu to at least be honorable and resign from his position as the director of the Child Protection Office. For his actions can only be described as regrettable and disgraceful.
Thank you,
Your servant
Sanaka rsi das
P.S. I ask the reader to please take into account that when I compiled this document I was quite disturbed and emotionally involved in the events mentioned.
It is important that credit is given where it is due, and not otherwise
This is a lengthy and at times technical summary of the events that have taken place since the beginning of the case, mostly behind closed doors. This paper documents, the repeated attempts of the CPO to obstruct the fair and impartial adjudication of Gauri’s case.
I have been recently informed that Tamohara prabhu, Antardvipa prabhu and Hanuman prabhu, (two of the CPO judges presiding the case) have resigned. Tamohara prabhu’s resignation is exclusive to his involvement as the case manager for Gauri das, he remains the Director of the CPO and a GBC.
While it can be argued, that being personally involved, my view is bound to be biased, I have endeavored to compile an objective and true account of the events to the best of my abilities.
In January 2007 we approached the CPO with the hope of finally obtaining a thorough and satisfactory review of the already mishandled case of Gauri das.
We have patiently followed the procedures required by the CPO to obtain justice; today we are left disappointed.
In 1990 I was enrolled in the Bhaktivedanta Swami International Gurukula in Vrindavana, India, where Gauri das was my teacher for a while.
Throughout the review of the case I have liaised with the CPO as the spokesperson for the former students of Gauri das that submitted testimonies against him.
To substantiate my case, in the course of this document I quote from some of the correspondence I have exchanged with Tamohara prabhu and other devotees involved with the case. In the attempt to contain the length of this document I have only quoted the relevant sections of the letters. I will be happy to submit the entire letters if deemed necessary.
I will start on December 4th, 2006, when in response to my inquiries regarding the procedures to have the case of Gauri das reopened Tamohara prabhu wrote me:
“If you do present this evidence it would need to go to the CPO Appeal Review Board for determination (this has replaced the GBC involvement).”
An Appeal Review board according to the CPO Manual consists of:
“…The Appeal Review Board shall consist of five CPO judges selected by the director”.
CPO Manual section V. “The appeal process”.
On January 23rd 2007 to request a reopening of the case, I submitted conclusive evidence showing that the previous investigation of Gauri’s case had been biased, incomplete and the final report altered. (Reading the above article will help those who are not very acquainted with the case to get a better picture)
Tamohara prabhu then informed me that together with Badrinarayana Prabhu they had concluded that my document which proved that the previous investigation had been flawed, was not sufficient to warrant a review of Gauri’s case. He further requested we prove that if, 12 years ago, the investigation had been carried out properly; more evidence of abuse would have emerged.
This was the first instance of GBC involvement in a case where the GBC could not have had any say whatsoever in order to guarantee the integrity of the CPO as an independent body.
This maneuver brought a two-fold challenge to us, it helped Gauri's position by making it more difficult for us to obtain a re-trial, and suddenly put the onus of proof on us; we were left to do the job of collecting evidence that arguably should have been done by the CPO.
Although at the time I was not happy with the request I did not raise any objections and eventually submitted the 23 testimonies to Tamohara prabhu.
This is where it gets complicated, Tamohara prabhu treated the case as if it was an appeal of a CPO ruling; however, the specific circumstances of Gauri’s case did not meet the criteria for an appeal as described in the CPO Manual; it was rather what the Manual defines as a "review".
Within 90 days of a CPO ruling the convicted party is allowed to appeal a verdict. The appeal process which, according to the Manual is intended solely for the perpetrator, offers significantly less rights than a review.
I would like to address the circumstances allowing for what the CPO Manual defines as “the review of a past case”:
Case of child abuse which have been dealt with in the past by the GBC or one of its agents (ministry of justice, ministry of education etc.) are subject to review by these judges including cases were guilt has been admitted and a sentence decided.
(CPO Manual, Section III JUSTICE SYSTEM, B. Rules With Respect to the Judges, 3-B)
And
Other cases may have been partially researched, no clear records, a sentence that is not being followed or clearly inappropriate etc. Such cases need to be reopened and resolved via the above justice system, in order to have a final official record and to put these cases to rest once and for all.
(CPO Manual, Section III JUSTICE SYSTEM, B. Rules with Respect to the Judges, Note following 3.c)
1. Gauri’s case had in the past been “partially researched” at best. The vast majority of the school’s children were never interviewed by the 1995 investigative committee.
The teachers were not formally interviewed, as well as Gauri’s former students living in Vrindavana at the time (not being under his control they were more likely to speak the freely without fear of retaliation). Not even the very boy beaten with a cane, whose bruises sparked the whole investigation was ever interviewed.
2. The choice of at least one of the investigators, Braja Bihari prabhu was clearly inappropriate as he was too close to the accused and the school; this was detailed, with direct quotes as evidence, in the above mentioned letter dated January 23rd 2007 requesting the reopening of Gauri’s case.
3. The case of Gauri das was not adjudicated by the CPO, but by the GBC Executive committee and the ISKCON International Office of Education.
4. The sentence was “clearly inappropriate”; the CPO Manual determines penalties this way:
Category 2 offense: (to be handled by the Central Office, in addition to the local level)
d. Physical abuse that happens more than once and/or causes injury
e. Psychological abuse that happens repeatedly and causes emotional harm
(CPO Manual section III. JUSTICE SYSTEM, M. Rules governing degree of offence, 2. Category 2 Offence)
The physical and emotional abuse Gauri das is responsible for, has a substantial degree of both severity and frequency. This, according to the CPO Manual, classifies him as a more serious “Category 2” offender; however, he did not receive any form of punishment subsequent to the 1995 inquiry.
In accordance with the rules outlined in the CPO Manual, reported above, cases such as Gauri’s are, due to their very nature, automatically subject to a review by the CPO; without the need for the victims to submit further evidence or GBC approval for that matter.
In a letter dated 22nd of January 2007 Tamohara prabhu wrote me:
“Your recent correspondence regarding the Gauri case has received the attention of myself and several GBC members. There has been some discussion of this and this will undoubtedly be further discussed when we are together at Mayapur.”
Any further progress on the case was put on hold until Tamohara prabhu could discuss the situation with the GBC in Mayapur.
Then in a letter dated April 6th 2007 Tamohara prabhu wrote me:
"The GBC EC (Executive committee), which had several years ago decided that the CPO did not need to look at this case, has now agreed that it may go forward."
The above proves that GBC involvement in CPO cases has not been replaced by the Appeal Review Board as Tamohara prabhu had indicated in his first letter dated December 4th 2007, and that regrettably, the CPO is not a body independent of the GBC. Tamohara prabhu’s recent promotion to GBC member further substantiates this and has created an unacceptable conflict of interests.
This raises the question of whether the CPO can guarantee objectivity and integrity in the adjudication of high-profile cases such as Gauri’s, where great financial and political interests are at stake.
The procedures commonly followed by the CPO in investigating and adjudicating allegations of abuse can be briefly outlined as follows:
3. The alleged victims submit their testimonies of abuse.
4. The CPO evaluates the testimonies and if it is decided that there is sufficient evidence, a case is opened and these testimonies are passed onto the alleged perpetrator to give him/her an opportunity to defend. The alleged perpetrator is thus awarded the unfair advantage to structure his/her defense on the accusations. Absurdly, the CPO does not currently afford the same opportunity to the victims, as they are not allowed to view and comment on the defense of the alleged perpetrator.
5. After the alleged perpetrator submits the defense, the judges then evaluate the evidence and formulate a verdict.
6. The CPO does not have any provision for cross examination of the evidence submitted by either party.
This is the procedure the CPO has implemented in the adjudication of high profile cases such as Dhanurdhara Swami’s.
Initially, on my request, Tamohara prabhu surprisingly agreed to allow us to view Gauri’s defense, thus assuring us an opportunity to respond; he later changed his mind and decided to go back on his word.
On August the 8th 2007 Tamohara prabhu wrote to me:
Dear Sanaka Rsi Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
We have just received the main defense of Gauri das. He is also providing character testimonies and other witnesses. Those are still coming in. We will send all this material to you soon, for any reply that you wish to give.
Your servant,
Tamohara prabhu
When I later requested to access Gauri’s defense for a rebuttal, Mahavisnupriya Mataji, (assistant CPO Director) wrote me a letter with the intent to deny us Tamohara prabhu’s pledge. On September 9th 2007 she wrote the following:
“We (Mahavisnupriya and Tamohara prabhu) could find no where in the manual where this (giving the victims an opportunity for a rebuttal) was stated as an allowable procedure.”
On October 7th, 2007 in response to my repeated requests to honor his word and grant us the fairness of a rebuttal Tamohara prabhu wrote:
"As for the procedure, the CPO works by set procedures that are outlined in the CPO Policies and Procedures Manual. We do not negotiate new procedures with each case. For the specific question raised, let me first say that I do not recall the phone conversation that you mentioned, but I did definitely send the email that indicated that you could respond to Gauri's testimony. I am not sure why I said that, perhaps it was trying to accommodate your insistence, but it has been pointed out that it is not the usually procedure”.
We later discovered that the relevant section of the CPO Manual states:
(1) Procedural matters;
(I) The timing and manner of any required discovery;
(II) The desirability of bifurcation or other separation of the issues in the adjudication;
(III) The scheduling of conferences and hearings;
(IV) The scheduling of pre- hearing submission of case documentation;
(V) The need for and type of record of conferences and hearings, including the need for transcripts;
(VI) The amount of time allotted to each party for presentation of its case and for rebuttal;
(VII) The mode, manner and order for presenting proof;
(VIII) The need for witnesses and how testimony should be presented;
(IX) and the necessity for any on site inspection by the Judges;
(CPO Manual section III. JUSTICE SYSTEM, Rules with Respect to the Conduct of the Adjudication Proceedings, 1. General provisions, D.1)
There is no further clarification in the CPO Manual on how the implementation of a rebuttal system is to take place.
In the letters quoted above, written by Mahavisnupriya where they attempt to deny us our right to a rebuttal, she wrote:
“We (Mahavisnupriya and Tamohara prabhu) could find no where in the manual where this (giving the victims an opportunity for a rebuttal) was stated as an allowable procedure.”
And Tamohara prabhu wrote
“...it has been pointed out that it is not the usually procedure”.
What they wrote can be argued as being strictly speaking correct, inasmuch as they do not state that the CPO Manual does not make provisions for a rebuttal. Yet it is misleading, as the intent of their carefully chosen words is to deny the victims their right to a fair confutation, without saying that the Manual does not allow for it.
The CPO Manual is written with the understanding that both parties be allowed the opportunity to a rebuttal.
Although the CPO Manual does not elaborate on the subject, it states that it is the job of the judges to decide the details of how this will take place.
I recently wrote to Dhira Govinda das (former CPO Director) to ask him whether he allowed the alleged victims an opportunity for a rebuttal during his tenure as the Director of the CPO, below is his reply:
I wrote:
The first question is whether it is true that in the course of your service as the Director, victims were never allowed to view the defense of the perpetrator and offered to comment on it. If the answer to the above question affirmative, the second is why did you feel this was appropriate?
Dhira Govinda replied:
[[[The above is definitely not true. That was not the procedure that I followed when I was CPO director. Basically, the alleged victims would present their case, and we would share it with the alleged perpetrator. Then the accused would respond, and that would be openly shared with the accuser(s). At that point the procedure would essentially be an open back-and-forth, with all evidence or testimonials submitted by any party, fully open for review and response by the other party, till both parties were satisfied that they had expressed everything they wanted to express.
"...victims were never allowed to view the defense of the perpetrator and offered to comment on it...." - completely not true. The accusers were always permitted to view the defence of the accused and invited to respond to it.]]]
It was disturbing to discover that sometime after Tamohara prabhu became the CPO Director, for some unknown reason, the adjudication procedures were altered, thus denying many victims their right to a rebuttal, and inevitably favoring the position of the perpetrators.
The above letter further compromised our faith in Tamohara and the CPO.
Regrettably the CPO still seems to be reasoning with the same mentality that so many times in the past has “sacrificed the child to safeguard the reputation of the school”. It is for preaching...
On October 22nd 2007, in response to the above letter I wrote to Tamohara prabhu:
“If it is true that in the adjudication of CPO cases the plaintiffs are not usually allowed a rebuttal; all I see that to mean, is that you have been conducting cases where the alleged victims were denied their vital rights, directly against the procedures outlined in the Manual; it does not mean that we are not entitled to a rebuttal in this case... I feel there is sufficient evidence indicating that during the course of this case the CPO did, either willfully or by oversight, “...negotiate new procedures...”; I perceive these new procedures to be favoring Gauri das.
The above paragraph is from a 5 page letter I sent Tamohara prabhu, wherein I explained how our experiences during the case had brought us to question some of the decisions he had taken. I listed and discussed these concerns at length.
As Tamohara prabhu did not afford me the consideration to respond to this and other letters I have sent him in the course of the case, to address our concerns and explain his actions, we are not given to know whether the amended rebuttal policy was due solely to his own personal initiative or if it was a decision taken jointly with the GBC and/or other CPO judges. Whatever may be the case; this prejudices the fair outcome of CPO adjudications from the start.
If we assume that Tamohara prabhu is familiar with the contents of the CPO manual; we must conclude that he has withheld information and mislead us about our rights. While we can only speculate as to what may have prompted Tamohara prabhu to act in this way, it is clear that, if we had not taken the trouble to personally researched the CPO Manual and fight for our rights, his actions would have affected the outcome the case to our disadvantage.
Then unexpectedly on November 11th 2007 Tamohara prabhu wrote to me:
Dear Sananka Rsi Prabhu,
PAMHO ATSP
I am attaching the response from Gauri das.
Please keep this completely confidential! The testimonies and proceedings of the CPO are always kept confidential, other than the final decisions. All of the testimonies of the former students are kept confidential, and so should Gauri's. We do not want this case tried in the court of public opinion or the internet. I am sure you can understand.
Please provide any response within 30 days.
your servant,
Tamohara prabhu
In a sudden turn of events, finally receiving Gauri’s entire defense document was for us a great success. We were overjoyed!
We had been granted unrestricted access to Gauri’s defense for a rebuttal. After much struggle Tamohara prabhu had granted the victims the same rights he had been offering perpetrators as part of standard procedure for years. This was a hard earned victory for us, which brought renewed hope.
Tamohara prabhu further demanded that we submit our rebuttal directly to him so that he could then pass it to the judges. As our faith in Tamohara prabhu had been steadily waning, at this point we were concerned that our rebuttal might not reach the judges in its complete form.
He denied our request to submit the rebuttal directly to the judges, claiming that it was against CPO policies.
A few weeks later, on the 25th of December 2007 I wrote to Tamohara prabhu :
“As you have not yet responded to my email, addressing my concerns and explaining your actions, our faith in you has been compromised. This leaves us in a dilemma, still wanting to do the right thing, but concerned that our rebuttal may not reach the judges in its complete form.
I spoke to Gauri prabhu at the Bhaktivedanta Manor about a week ago; he confirmed that you have not sent him N.das and N. das’s testimonies and this further reinforces our concerns. While it may be that this incident in itself is due to negligence on your part, rather than an intentional oversight, it nonetheless leaves the performance of your duties open to discussion.
As you yourself have not followed some of the mandates in the CPO manual (please refer to the 9/12/07 letter below for further details) it is now hard for us to accept your claims that you do not renegotiate CPO policies; we can not explain the reason that now prompts you to require our strict adherence to the rules. It is also important to note that while the purpose of the adjustment we are requesting (We had asked his consent to submit our rebuttal directly to the judges) is solely to ensure the integrity and fairness of the procedures; the same can not be said for the alterations you have taken the liberty to execute, as it can be argued that such changes could have compromised the fair outcome of the case. The CPO Manual does not state anywhere that we are not entitled to the assurance that the judges receive all the evidence in its complete form. In light of what has taken place in the course of this case, we are unwilling to accept that the matter will be dealt with adequately. At this point we are reluctant to implicitly trust that our rebuttal will be forwarded to the judges in its complete form”.
His reply came in on December 27th 2007:
“Hare Krishna,
I am sorry that you have not been happy with the manner the case has been handled. I am upholding the procedures to be best of my abilities. In over 100 cases in 9 years, we have never had a problem with judges not being sent testimony. It seems absurd to pursue this further.
1. I will resend the two testimonies to Gauri, if for some reason he did not receive them. They have been sent to the judges, as you know.
2. You may give your reply to Gauri's testimony by January 1, as we both agreed. Whether you chose to send this to the CPO, or continue to argue and endlessly complain, is up to you. You may make your choice”.
I later learned that Tamohara prabhu never sent the testimonies in question to Gauri prabhu.
Four months after submitting our rebuttal, on April 16th 2007 after a long silence I received the following letter from Tamohara prabhu:
"...But the biggest obstacle we now face pertains to our judges. While the three judges selected on this case are all experienced and proven judges, two of them have withdrawn their service as judges on this case. Both Hanuman Prabhu and Antardwipa Prabhu have told us that they can no longer continue due to time constraints and personal reasons. I have repeatedly asked them to continue, but they have decided against it. Kaisori Prabhu is still active on this case.
Therefore, we are faced with the difficult situation of needing to bring in two new judges. We will select new judges and submit their names for approval. Hopefully, they will be able to read the case material quickly and proceed towards a conclusion. I regret this turn of events, as it is fairly unprecedented in our CPO adjudications. We all would like to see a quick resolution.
On another note, I will no longer act as case manager of this adjudication. I am turning over all new cases and phasing out of any existing ones. Mahavishnupriya Prabhu will be handling the case from here on, and all communication should be done through her."
I forwarded the above letter to Hanuman prabhu and Antardwipa prabhu asking for clarifications. Hanuman prabhu replied with an alarming e-mail:
"It sounds strange to me that Tamohara prabhu has told you just a few daysago while I told him in October 1st last year."
The letter below is from Hanuman prabhu to Tamohara prabhu dated October 1st 2007.
I can't see how I can help with this case. I'm sure I would not be able to
sit and give it the time it deserves until after Gaura Purnima. (2008)
I should have seen this would happen earlier but hoped things would become
more peaceful here.
Anyway, sorry to drop from the case but I can't see how I can help with it.
And further down in the letter Hanuman prabhu copied me Tamohara prabhu’s original letter:
> Letter PAMHO:14309599 (6 lines)
> From: Tamohara (das) ACBSP (Alachua, FL - US)
> Date: 07-Oct-07 15:48 (11:48 -0400)
> To: Hanuman das (Latin American BBT) [44167]
> Reference: Text PAMHO:14276161 by Hanuman das (Latin American BBT)
> Subject: Gauri's case
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Hare Krishna,
> Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
> Sorry to hear this. I am not sure where to go with this, after so much
> time. If you definitely cannot work with this case, I will find another
> judge. Your servant,
> Tamohara prabhu
> (Text PAMHO:14309599) --------------------------------------
Hanuman Prabhu’s letter continues:
"That's all I heard.
Frankly speaking, I feel disturbed that he says:
I have repeatedly asked them to continue, but they have decided against it. I never ever received any other e-mail from Tamohara prabhu about this. Not a single one. Very disturbing.
I've added him (Tamohara prabhu) as receiver. I'd like to see the e-mails where he asked me this and the ones where I decided against this."
Six months and two weeks; on October 1st 2007 Hanuman wrote that he would not be able to look at the case till after Gaura Purnima 2008, on October 7th, Tamoharas' reply was, “If you definitely cannot work with this case, I will find another judge". Yet he claimed that he had repeatedly requested the judges to stay with the case.
Although Tamohara prabhu had known that he needed a new judge since October 1st 2007 he waited till April 16th 2008 to inform us that he would have to start looking for new judges to conclude the case.
This was only after I wrote to him on March the 30th 2008 informing him that our patience was running out, and that if he continued to ignore my letters we would take the case public. I am curious to know how long he would have waited to inform us that our judges had resigned, if we had not threatened to go public.
It would seem that it was Tamohara prabhu’s intention to delay the adjudication; by stalling the case Tamohara bought Gauri das another six months on the job…
Although the CPO website boasts more than 100 trained judges, more than a month has passed and the CPO has not yet found two new judges to conclude the adjudication!
The last issue addressed in the letter, concerning Tamohara prabhu’s resignation as the case manager and his replacement by Mahavisnupriya Mataji, is a topic which has come up for discussion once before in the course of the case. I explained to Tamohara prabhu in a letter dated September 9th 2007 that due to the delicate nature of the case we preferred that he continued to operate as the case manager. Conceding to my request he pledged to be the case manager to the end of the adjudication. He is now informing us that he intends to go back on his word once again, without even consulting with us. This inconsistency fosters our already present mistrust in the CPO and Tamohara prabhu.
In our correspondence Tamohara prabhu has rightly described this case with words such as “high profile”, “delicate”, “important” and now in this last letter he states that the resignation of two judges is “fairly unprecedented”.
Given that, if the situation gets out of hand, there is potential for negative consequences of a large magnitude, to the detriment of ISKCON in the UK, and world wide, Tamohara prabhu’s resignation from the case, now that we are faced with unexpected complications and difficulties, can at best be described as negligent or irresponsible, if not outright reckless.
It is reasonable to say that the unique circumstances surrounding this case would demand the undivided attention and personal care of the CPO Director, especially considering that he has been following the case from the very beginning.
Tamoharas' negligence and proactive efforts to delay and obstruct the fair course of justice, lend credibility to the theory that whoever had an interest in keeping Gauri das as the president may have attempted and succeeded in corrupting the Director of the Child Protection Office of the Hare Krsna Movement.
This experience leaves me wandering how many times in the past; the cost of protecting the "best interest" of our society has resulted in further abuse, the ruthless CPO procedural machine has inflicted on the victims. It is fair to ask if the way the CPO handled Gauri's case was an exception or if this is simply their standard modus-operandi.
On May 29th 2008 I wrote a letter to Mahavisnupriya Mataji asking her explanations for Tamohara prabhu’s questionable actions.
Her reply came on June 10th 2008, she wrote:
"I do not care to comment on your last email.
y/s, MVPdd "
She was the person who substituted Tamohara prabhu as the case manager, she was the CPO representative designated to guide, help and assist us for the duration of the case. I can accept that she may have been under much pressure, and that perhaps she did not like me, however I can not accept that this would justify this kind of response.
Today we are all adults and by Krsna’s grace we are reasonably well equipped to demand our rights and make our voices heard. Yet we had to exert much effort to front obstacles the CPO placed on our path to obtain something as basic as a fair trial.
This experience leaves me dreading to think the fate that would await a defenseless 5 year old boy that today, somehow approached the CPO for protection, if tragically he was to be abused by one of our prominent Gurus or GBC members.
Would the CPO protect him and jeopardize the interest and reputation of the Society...I fear it wouldn't.
In closing I feel that these events have brought to light the need for radical and urgent reforms of the CPO system, its ideals and modus-operandi.
The foremost problem encountered in my interactions with the CPO has been a lack of transparency and accountability. There is an underlying perception that the CPO has no time to spare for people who question the system. At times we felt gagged by the system, with nobody to turn to; we were not entitled to the reassurance that the case was handled objectively and with integrity. This approach prevented the proper scrutiny and transparency of a case, whose complexity has made it almost inevitable that something would go wrong.
Behind this silence lurks injustice.
When the victims are not made to feel they can trust in a justice system, the system becomes ineffective, redundant and looses the very meaning for its existence.
The lack of the implementation of a fair rebuttal system that gives equal rights to both the alleged victims and the alleged perpetrator undermines the credibility of the CPO as an objective and dependable justice system, consequently leaving its adjudications open to criticisms. Hence such a system must be reinstated with immediate effect as part of standard CPO policies on all current and future cases.
When the CPO will patiently show more openness and willingness to public scrutiny and accountability, it will be possible, to begin the process of transforming the system so that it can be effective, considerate and trusted.
We request that Tamohara prabhu as the Director of the Child Protection Office offers us satisfactory explanations to justify the questionable decisions and actions he has taken in the course of this case, namely:
1) Why has the CPO amended the adjudication procedures so as to deny the victims their right to a rebuttal?
2) Why Tamohara prabhu has misled us and withheld information about our rights?
3) What is the legitimate role of the GBC in CPO adjudications?
4) Why has Tamohara prabhu delayed the adjudication of Gauri’s case by over six months?
5) Why has Tamohara prabhu not replied to the many letters I have sent him?
6) Why has Tamohara prabhu acted in ways that could have affected the outcome of the case in Gauri’s favour?
7) Why did he feel the need to lie to us?
Without providing satisfactory and comprehensive answers to these questions the credibility of Tamohara prabhu’s “innocent until proven guilty, beyond any shadow of a doubt” defense, is tenuous.
Furthermore we request that from now on Tamohara prabhu and the CPO operate with the open door policy they ought to function under. This includes answering any questions we may have in regards to the procedures followed in a considerate and comprehensive manner as well as satisfying our desire for an objective and just trial.
In closing I wish to inform any victims who are currently involved in CPO adjudication that it is in their right to request and receive a copy of the alleged offender’s defence for the opportunity to comment on it. This is in accordance with the rules of the CPO Manual, but most importantly it fulfills the moral obligation of objectivity the CPO must have toward alleged victims, in its role as an impartial justice system, established for the protection of the children.
A society that does not take a definitive stance for the protection of its children does not stand for much and has no future.
Thank you
Hare Krsna
ys
Sanaka rsi das
